NX Security (was [FreeNX-kNX] Re: got: "cannot create directory `/home/.nx'")

[Kurt Pfeifle]

On Wednesday 20 October 2004 02:20, freenx at mikebell.org wrote:

> > I have s suggestion: how about you actually start running an NX server
> > somewhere? Start *seeing* instead of believing, start *experiencing*
> > instead of speculatiing? 
> 
> Because as I just stated I (and apparently a few others, or it would be
> a non-issue) do not feel comfortable running an NX server at all?

Uhmmm... did I ask you to run it as a public internet accessible
server? Did I ask you to buy new hardware to evaluate it and throw
it away afterwards?

Here are 2 sweet little secrets: an NX "server" is added to an existing 
system within 3 minutes, up and running, without damaging it. (And to be 
even faster, you can use the free-as-in-beer commercial evaluation 
NoMachine packages for it...)

The 2nd one: you can use 1 Knoppix-3.6 to enable a FreeNX "server" on it 
and use a 2ndKnoppix from a different box to access it. Or you can run it 
all on localhost (and get more easily confused which of the nx* processes 
is meant to represent the NX server and which one the NX client)....    ;-)

> Because it seemed perfectly reasonable to ask if someone was willing to
> document the procedure before building two throwaway 

ha ha ha....

> systems, both 
> inaccessible from public networks, to briefly look at a piece of
> software I've already determined I'm uninterested in running anyway?

OK, so have already determined, but still think it is "perfectly 
reasonable" to ask? So why should I now longer waste my time with you? 
If you are uninterested, but still continue to insist on spreading your 
mere speculations and thoughts, untainted by any practical experimentation
(and not even thorough source studying), I'll feel free to disregard
your future musings as those of a troll.

> Because while NX is interesting technology there is only so much
> investiture of time that can be justified?

Thanks for trying to take *my* time in lieu of your own most valuable
one.

> If you don't want to answer the question then no one is forcing you. But
> one can hardly expect people to run software when there is
> not-inconsiderable concern about its behaviour and no one will document
> that behaviour. Not unless unless that person feels the software's
> utility justifies a complete source code audit, and the unfortunate fact
> is that this kind of time investment is hard to justify for software of
> NX's limited appeal.

"NX's limited appeal"....

Hahaha, good one! ROFL...

Good one especially from someone who admittedly hasn't even seen it with 
his own eyes...  ;-)

Even better one as this gives me also a good deja-vu. You are not the 
first to say this. I find that really funny (no joke).   ;-)

At least this laugh was worth the effort now!  ;-)

> > This last time I ask you now: please look at this "shell" yourself, 
> > which is what "nx" gets upon login. It likely is not a "shell" like 
> > you may imagine or what you expect....

Finally ust some links for *anybody* who prefers "read first, test 
later (or not)":

  http://www.nomachine.com/faq.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/intr-technology.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/intr-components.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/building-components.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/nxserver-on-solaris.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/admin-guide.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/documentation/supp-request.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/usage.php
  http://www.nomachine.com/news.php